In a thread I came across, I saw someone mention that Britain becomin a Superpower after WW2 was impossible, but is that true? It occurs to me that if they kept Canada, Australia and new Zealand they'd have the land and resources to become one. Is there any chance of Britain keeping the Commonwealth? India's obviously going to go as well as the many other non-White colonies. I'm not sure about South Africa, but I'm guessing they'd also break away from the Empire.
Post WW2 British Superpower?
- Thread starter Lee-Sensei
- Start date
They were a superpower, from WWII until the Suez Crisis there were 3 superpowers, after Suez the British lost the status of Superpower. What you would need is for the Suez Crisis to either not happen or for the US to not intervene diplomatically and NOT cause nuclear war because of that.
That's heavily debated and I lean towards no. What I'm looking for is a way for them to keep their Empire.
Having more land is imporrtant. It means more room for a growing population. It makes a successful invasion less likely. There's a better chance at finding natural resources.
The best example is France colonising the Sahara. A way of showing your strength, but absolutely useless.
To really have a superpower, Britain was insufficient on its own, as India was underdevelopped and Britain would've been absolutely dependent on its fleet for freight between regions, unlike the USSR or USA.
A contrario, Frengland or whatever you call the reunion of France and England, could have a post-war superpower status as it effectively controls almost all Africa, has a large enough population if you take into account Algeria (which was much closer to France than Canada to UK)
To really have a superpower, Britain was insufficient on its own, as India was underdevelopped and Britain would've been absolutely dependent on its fleet for freight between regions, unlike the USSR or USA.
A contrario, Frengland or whatever you call the reunion of France and England, could have a post-war superpower status as it effectively controls almost all Africa, has a large enough population if you take into account Algeria (which was much closer to France than Canada to UK)
WW1 was the big dent in the Empire. But WW2 was the last nail in the coffin. Stop WW1, and you got a superpower to last.
AussieHawker
Banned
No ww1 and they could hold on their colonies for much longer. They could also continue settlement so a Kenyan colony, Rhodesia and South Africa could all have a white minority that is powerful enough to hold down the native populations. Even in OTL with the USSR supplying anti colonist guerrillas the White minority regimes without British support lasted for a while. With other Europuan powers covering the other borders, no supply of weapons, larger white minority they could last till modern day if they keep morale for the counter insurgency up high enough.
Sadly, the only way for Britain's superpower status to be retained would be butterflying away WWI and obviously WWII.
That being said, you could tweak things - improve the British economy by moving certain events and having the U.S. forgive British debt in exchange for something else. If that happens, and Britain quickly jettisons all the rubbish, large and expensive territories, then, well, I could see them doing better. Obviously Suez couldn't happen either. They probably wouldn't end up joining the EU as well.
^ If you want more land, Malta integrating in the mid-late 50s and kicking off a wave of similar moves by other then colonies could work. The only way that Britain would be okay with that is if their financial house was in order, as mentioned in the above paragraph. Having Singapore would give the UK the distinction of being able to say "Two financial capitols" - one in Asia, the other in Europe - bridge between two worlds and all that.
EDIT: Yeah, you're not going to get CANZAU to be in Britain barring a early Imperial Federation a la the excellent Rule Britannia TL.
That being said, you could tweak things - improve the British economy by moving certain events and having the U.S. forgive British debt in exchange for something else. If that happens, and Britain quickly jettisons all the rubbish, large and expensive territories, then, well, I could see them doing better. Obviously Suez couldn't happen either. They probably wouldn't end up joining the EU as well.
^ If you want more land, Malta integrating in the mid-late 50s and kicking off a wave of similar moves by other then colonies could work. The only way that Britain would be okay with that is if their financial house was in order, as mentioned in the above paragraph. Having Singapore would give the UK the distinction of being able to say "Two financial capitols" - one in Asia, the other in Europe - bridge between two worlds and all that.
EDIT: Yeah, you're not going to get CANZAU to be in Britain barring a early Imperial Federation a la the excellent Rule Britannia TL.
Last edited:
The problem's empire's too evil and oppressive to stay forever in a liberal state. Do consider its achievement:
Irish Famine
WW2 Indian Famine
Churchill started the Iraqi chemical gassings
Most ethnic cleansing in history,
Oppressive setting aside of democracies
The massest unrepresentative tax oppression.
-You're going to tell me you never heard of Mahatma Gandhi, whom won India? Ever??
Irish Famine
WW2 Indian Famine
Churchill started the Iraqi chemical gassings
Most ethnic cleansing in history,
Oppressive setting aside of democracies
The massest unrepresentative tax oppression.
-You're going to tell me you never heard of Mahatma Gandhi, whom won India? Ever??
Caesar Biden
Banned
You'd have to have a very different WW2- One where, perhaps, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany bleed each other white even moreso than OTL while mostly leaving Britain alone. Something along the lines of the "More rational Nazis" AH cliche, (except one of the better written ones of course
) where Germany makes peace with the Westerners after the fall of France and pours all its efforts into an attack on the Soviet Union. At the same time, you need an Isolationist USA that doesn't even give Lend Lease to the Soviets at least, and for some sort of Franco-British Union to happen that allows Britain to have more resources to be a superpower.
So here's the idea. It's a stretch, but it's probably your best bet:
1940: Nazis somehow make peace with Britain, France and Britain form a Union out of fear of a new attack and start preparing for the next war. Germans take Alsace-Lorraine, leave most of France as part of peace deal and withdraw. American investments help the Franco-British Union rebuild and start to focus on keeping their colonies in good relationships.
1941-5?: Alt-Barbarossa, even more Isolationist USA is willing to financially support F-B but not SU. War drags on a long time, destroying both sides' manpower and slowly turning into SU favor before giving way to stalemate somewhere near B-L line. This isn't a WW1 style stalemate, it's both sides being exhausted on a mobile front that neither side seems able to have the resources to break through but keeps trying to. Even with all of this, Germany slowly losing, but due to no L-L, SU less able to capitalize on it as quickly.
Meanwhile, with American support F-B fights and contains Japan. Huge buildup of military.
1946-7: West declares war on Germany again. Ends with British Atomic bomb and West controlling into poland. SU is exhausted as a power, Baltics and Ukraine possibly break free with Western support after long insurgencies against Nazis and Soviets each (Very, VERY unlikely). Still, SU a superpower.
1947 on: Franco-British Union seen as leading West in every way, with control over Central Europe and Pacific as well as their Empires that, though eventually get independence, they retain a lot of influence over. Even with all this, US industrial and economic might is really what keeps them afloat, but this isolationist US has no desire to lead besides making tons of money.
That's all I've got. it's borderline ASB, but it fits the bill more or less.
) where Germany makes peace with the Westerners after the fall of France and pours all its efforts into an attack on the Soviet Union. At the same time, you need an Isolationist USA that doesn't even give Lend Lease to the Soviets at least, and for some sort of Franco-British Union to happen that allows Britain to have more resources to be a superpower.So here's the idea. It's a stretch, but it's probably your best bet:
1940: Nazis somehow make peace with Britain, France and Britain form a Union out of fear of a new attack and start preparing for the next war. Germans take Alsace-Lorraine, leave most of France as part of peace deal and withdraw. American investments help the Franco-British Union rebuild and start to focus on keeping their colonies in good relationships.
1941-5?: Alt-Barbarossa, even more Isolationist USA is willing to financially support F-B but not SU. War drags on a long time, destroying both sides' manpower and slowly turning into SU favor before giving way to stalemate somewhere near B-L line. This isn't a WW1 style stalemate, it's both sides being exhausted on a mobile front that neither side seems able to have the resources to break through but keeps trying to. Even with all of this, Germany slowly losing, but due to no L-L, SU less able to capitalize on it as quickly.
Meanwhile, with American support F-B fights and contains Japan. Huge buildup of military.
1946-7: West declares war on Germany again. Ends with British Atomic bomb and West controlling into poland. SU is exhausted as a power, Baltics and Ukraine possibly break free with Western support after long insurgencies against Nazis and Soviets each (Very, VERY unlikely). Still, SU a superpower.
1947 on: Franco-British Union seen as leading West in every way, with control over Central Europe and Pacific as well as their Empires that, though eventually get independence, they retain a lot of influence over. Even with all this, US industrial and economic might is really what keeps them afloat, but this isolationist US has no desire to lead besides making tons of money.
That's all I've got. it's borderline ASB, but it fits the bill more or less.
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
Hmm
Hitler then carries out Sealion and suppresses the UK.
First Minister of India (India achieved something akin to Dominion status after WW1), Mahatma Ghandi, arm-twists the Emperor into announcing that even though the UK has capitulated, the British Empire will still fight on, under the leadership of India.
By the end of the war, the British Empire (effectively taken over by India, under the authority of the Emperor) is well on the way to nuclear superpower status...
Not sure if that's what you're looking for, though...
I'm toying with the idea for a timeline where, from Queen Victoria onwards, the British monarchs are based in India (on account of the whole Emperor/Empress of India thing) leaving some sibling or child to act as regent and sign off on legislation in London. In this timeline, Baldwin & Chamberlain mess up worse in the thirties in terms of rearmament, etc, than in the original timeline, and compound things by sending the entire RAF to try and bail out the French in 1940.
Hitler then carries out Sealion and suppresses the UK.
First Minister of India (India achieved something akin to Dominion status after WW1), Mahatma Ghandi, arm-twists the Emperor into announcing that even though the UK has capitulated, the British Empire will still fight on, under the leadership of India.
By the end of the war, the British Empire (effectively taken over by India, under the authority of the Emperor) is well on the way to nuclear superpower status...
Not sure if that's what you're looking for, though...
The problem is that India is the "jewel in the crown", the most important component of their Empire, but their population is much, much larger than Britain's. This means that there's this dilemma in which they either give Indians equal rights to the British, or continue to repress them until the end of time. The former would result in the "British Empire" not being "British" anymore...it would be Indian, because of population, while the latter would just lead to them losing India anyway.
And giving Indians education so that they would see themselves as British isn't really going to work either, as a lot of the major individuals involved in the Indian independence movement were ones who went to British schools and got British education OTL, like Gandhi, Nehru, Bose, etc...Especially if they don't get equal rights, which is infeasible as stated above...
And once India goes, all the other colonies have an example to go with, and they would want independence too...And Indian independence was already kicking around before WWI, so it is fairly inevitable for it to happen, though it would occur later without the world wars...
And giving Indians education so that they would see themselves as British isn't really going to work either, as a lot of the major individuals involved in the Indian independence movement were ones who went to British schools and got British education OTL, like Gandhi, Nehru, Bose, etc...Especially if they don't get equal rights, which is infeasible as stated above...
And once India goes, all the other colonies have an example to go with, and they would want independence too...And Indian independence was already kicking around before WWI, so it is fairly inevitable for it to happen, though it would occur later without the world wars...
Fenlander
Banned
The main factor in South Africa breaking away was the 1960 republic
referendum. It was carefully engineered by the ruling National Party to ensure victory. Non-whites, including the Cape Coloureds were prohibited from voting and the primarily German population of South-West Africa were given a vote.
If you can stop the National Party from winning the 1948 election then the slow expansion of the franchise should keep them out of power for a good few decades, probably butterfly the worst of apartheid too.
hipper
Banned
Hmm have Britain support France in 36 and re occupy the Rineland. Hitler falls and is replaced by a rational German leader,
Low level hostility from the SU means Europe looks to the UK and France as leaders of a anti communist European style alliance. The worlds trading system remains protectionist with individual countries negotiating access to the sterling area.
America fights a Pacific war alone against Japan, without significant domestic support. Poor war performance means Rosevelt looses the 1944 election to an isolationist republican. Who maks peace
America remains in splendid isolation.
cheers Hipper.
Um... The Wikipedia page for "Superpower" clearly lists Britain as one of them until Suez >.< and the encyclopedia in my lap right now does as well. So... Yeah... I am gonna say that it would be best to try and either butterfly WWI or get the British to try and do something akin to the "Rule, Britannia" TL. Or, y'know, Franco-British Union, that would easily make and possibly even keep superpower status.
Trouble is... What does this mean for the Cold War? Two Superpowers on one side(or three depending on how the war in China goes and if they can actually get their economy booming quickly enough) or a tripolar cold war?
RousseauX
Donor
And Suez alone should show that Britain's 1945-1953 status was illusory.
I'd argue that British superpowerdom was probably over by the 1930s.
RousseauX
Donor
Why would the US do badly against Japan?
For that matter, why is an isolationist US a good thing for the UK? The UK didn't have the economic power to pull off superpower status by the mid 20th century. Having the US on the British side as an active power is an absolute must if the UK wants to keep itself a relevant power.
This is an absolutely terrible idea for Britain because its economy is constantly shrinking vice-verse everybody else. It gets to the point where trading blocs would probably hurt Britain more than anyone else.
Don't forget the Franc zone has more or less equal power economically. But that TL would most benefit France, as it would've kept its prestige intact and thus keeping easily its colonial empire.
However, I"d say it already was getting too late for GB to keep India.